Whose religious message should taxpayers be required to fund?

Either none of them, or all of them.

Taxpayers should under no circumstances be required fund any type of religious display.

Aren’t there better uses for our tax money than putting up a public monument that targets only a specific audience?

Taxpayers should not be required to fund any religious messages. Taxpayer money should not have payed for the Ten Commandments and it should have nothing to do with the Satanist’s monument.

The monument was privately funded (albeit sitting on public property).

@ragingloli, @1TubeGuru, @dxs & @LilCosmo Agreed.

@jaytkay I should have been more specific in the original question details. Presumably public land, just like other land, has a value. Since the state of OK thought the 10 Commandments Monument, though privately funded, was OK for display on public land, the plaintiffs in this case are arguing that if they are willing to fund a like-sized monument for display on the same public land, they should be allowed to. They are saying the value of the pubic land should be equally available for displays by either any religion, or none.

I have no doubt the 10 Commandments monument will ultimately be removed.

“The House speaker said he wants to build a chapel inside the Capitol to celebrate Oklahoma’s “Judeo-Christian heritage.”
– Is just ludicrous, in that he’s actually proposing using public funds to ‘celebrate’ specific religions using public funds.

It’s a shame the lawmakers can’t focus on the good of all the people they govern, instead of further polarizing their constituency.

Not just small minded, but small brained, idea.

We already have an atheist monument here in Florida.

The AoF didn’t really want to build one, but since it was determined that they Christian group had the right to keep up the 10 Commandments, then any group had the right to put one up.

I’m glad it’s the Satanists building one in Oklahoma. Now if only we can get a Wiccan altar and a statue of the Mother Goddess, maybe the Christians will pay attention. They already simply disregard atheists as “not saved yet”, instead of viewing us as direct opposition.

@ibstubro I wonder if they’ll plan on planting a circle of holly and laurel trees to celebrate Oklahoma’s Cherokee heritage.

I’d sooner put my money on “The Eternal Flaming Cross”, @Seek_Kolinahr

Gas fired, of course.

I have a great idea for that Satanist monument: A 10 metre tall Satan standing triumphantly in front of a slain Jesus, with his hoof on Jesus’ scalp.

Generally, I wouldn’t support government funding for any specific religion (or lack thereof). I wouldn’t support government funding to remove it either. I admit that I do view the Ten Commandments slightly different. They are not strictly a Christian thing since they were handed down some 600 years before the birth of Christ. And honestly many religions have a similar theme in the rules of behavior (Satanists maybe not) which are not necessarily bad. Honor thy mother and father, thou shalt not kill, I find the one about not coveting thy neighbors ass to be overly restrictive but generally a good set of rules.

^ Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not take unto thee any graven image. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

Yeah. Nothing at all specifically Judeo-Christian about that.

I was thinking that a simple Golden Rule would have been difficult to refute, @Jaxk, but unappealing to religious fundamentalist anything for that very reason.

It’s not the concepts of good humanity that are being promoted here, it’s the specific vehicle of distribution.

Thou shalt not take unto thee any graven image.

A stone monument, for example.

^ You noticed that, too, huh?

Yeah, imagine what jehovah thinks of this

Also, the only commandments that have any relation to actual laws are 6 and 8, the ones about murder and theft.

And the rest of them are direct violations of the fundamental freedoms of religion, thought, speech and self determination.
I can see why christians would want a monument to that.

@Seek_Kolinahr

Actually you added the judeo part. If we’re being picky here, wasn’t Satan an invention of the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Seems they want to build a second Christian symbol.

Mine$$$!!!

I don’t care. The floodgates have been open. I hope the Hare Krishnas show up and build a monument, as well. And the Muslims come build a minaret. And the Buddhists build a fat concrete Buddha, and the Cambodian Buddhists build a skinny Buddha. And the Neopagans build a nice replica of Stonehenge.

I hope they take this free-for-all to its most absurd extreme and show exactly how ridiculous it is to use the front lawn of the public courthouse as a religious bulletin-board.

^ I’m surprised. I thought you would be for incarceration of anyone that would make snow angels on the lawn.

Believe me, I don’t want there to be any religious statues on public lawn. But once you allow one, you must allow them all. And I hope people take advantage of that and make an example, so in the future we don’t have to fight such stupid battles.

All, smart-ass aside, @Seek_Kolinahr, wouldn’t that be a glorious tourist trap for OK? What a cool little park they could have, and as long as it was bringing revenue, no one would care if or what religion was involved. lol You’ve piqued my interest, and I’m now on the side of the monuments.

None. Ever.

Does anyone know who pays for the upkeep? Paying for the slab is easy enough. But these things will need maintenance. At least a good pressure-wash every few years.

It’s probably just rolled into the maintenance for the courthouse itself, so a moderately paid county employee who is already on the payroll will take care of it as needed.

Upkeep is nearly zilch – it’s basically a large tombstone on a slab in the picture.

To All.

We don’t even have to get into other religions. The Catholics are the largest single denomination in the US, and long ago as the fortune in gold and jewel encrusted craven images mounted in the Vatican, some fiduciary minded Pope decided that that commandment was out. They’d want a statue to the Virgin Mary or some saint. Then there are 200 protestant denominations who would each have an idea of what sort of monument should be on display. The Southern Baptists, as the second largest denomination in the US, might want John baptizing people by full immersion to remind all those other heretic denominations (Catholics included) that sprinkling a bit of water on the head is not sufficient. And then of course, each slighted denomination would have to erect their own display. Only then do we move on to the statue of Sun Myung Moon, Con artist Joseph Smith talking to the Angel Moroni, all the different Buddhas, the Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Kharijite, Ibadi, and the 20 or so “Deviant” Sects. We’ve got the various Buddhas to accommodate. And then let’s see, how many different Gods do do Hindus worship? It’s up in the thousands. And we’re only getting started here. Wiccans, Secular Humanists, we could go on and on. It should be laughable to claim that the public square is open to all to use in advertising their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

@Jaxk Actually, the first four commandments are about man’s relationship with Yahweh and have NO PLACE in American law if our Constitution has any meaning at all. Rule 5 would be tough to police, particularly as it involves not just actions but thoughts, and asks people born to a Crack whore who doesn’t even know whose baby she is having and abandons the kid for adoption at birth to behave exactly like those fortunate enough to have wealthy, loving parents who put them into the finest private schools and ensure they get the best Ivy League education possible and every advantage in starting their lives.

Rule 6 and 8 (son’t kill, don’t steal) are written into our laws, and those of every other major culture regardless of religion or lack thereof. Rule 7 isn’t written into our law per se any more, but unless you’re in an open marriage, if you have any community property to protect, it’s probably a wise one to follow. Rule 9 is applied in jurisprudence in anti-perjury laws. But rule 10 is a thought crime. I can’t imagine how that could be made part of the law, and would not want to live in a place where thought crimes were actually punished even it you elected never to act upon them. I can control my actions, but I cannot control my thought.

Wait, I just read the article, and the Satanists have an extremely interesting proposition.

Get this…

”...Our proposed monument, ...an homage to the historic/literary Satan…”

“Greaves said one potential design involves… an interactive display for children.”

Oh fucking boy. An interactive Satan display for children.

“OK kids! Who wants to go to the Satan ride?”

I do! I do!

Man, satanists have a great sense of humour.

It should be up for the locals of the town to decide. If the people of a town want to erect a statue of Kermit the freaking frog it’s no ones business. Take it to a vote, get it done.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies More’s the better if religious displays are permitted on the town square.

@DWW25921 We actually are a Republic, not a confederation of independent states and communities each doing their own thing. It’s defined in the Constitution, so it’s not up to local voting. That’s as ridiculous as saying that any community has the right to vote to reenact slavery, or to burn at the stake all Mormons as heretics.

@ETpro I’ll amend my comment. People should be able to do what they will within reason and under law.

I never have understood why everyone has to be ‘that’s not fair’ about every little thing. I was taught that life isn’t fair, so take down every single piece of religious statuary, etc…

You aren’t going to change someone’s entire belief system by a piece of granite or a statue people.

@KNOWITALL
Separation of church and state is not a “little thing”.

@ragingloli Yeah, that’s why I said take it all down.

I’m diggin’ @DWW25921 suggestion to just let the folk of a community decide amongst themselves how best to run their lives.

I understand, but don’t buy your opposition @ETpro. I get it, but think about it in today’s world. Let’s assume some community adopted slavery and/or burning of witches. The entire world would place sanctions upon that little county to the extent that those who proposed the idea would be run out of town tarred and feathered. No one would trade with them. No economic incentive. All the smart witches would just fly their brooms across the county line. The militant groups of other counties would free the slaves on a nightly basis and we’d all be eating apple pie by noon the next day.

If it happened, then it might last a minute. Then we’d have no more of that.

@ragingloli “Seperation of church and state” is thrown around a lot. For the sake of context it seems that Jefferson was trying to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.

Jefferson writes: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

^ That is engraved on the atheist monument in Tallahassee, FL.

@DWW25921
You can not have one without the other.
A state controlled by religion will make laws according to that religion, and against other religions.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I have absolutely no interest in starting a “Let’s burn the US Constitution movement.” If you do, have at it. I will fight your movement with every ounce of my energy.

@DWW25921 You can’t just cherry pick Jeffersonian quotes and claim that your out-of-context quote captures the whole essence if the man and his thinking. Jefferson was openly a deist and most likely an atheist. Nonetheless, he wanted a government that allowed any religious person, regardless of their faith, the free exercise thereof. He also wanted a government that made it abundantly clear that it was not the job of the government to compel anyone to worship in a certain way or follow some state-sanctioned faith. Almost all the American Colonists had left Europe to escape just such government approved religion.

@ETpro All I said was, “For the sake of context it seems that Jefferson was trying to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.” I never made any claims or anything like that. Clearly, they should be separate to better protect religious freedoms.

@DWW25921 No! Jefferson was trying to protect the individual form the immensely greater power of both the church and the state. Both church and state had shown their enormous power for evil in the Europe that the American settlers came here to escape from.

Merging the power of church and state simply amplifies the power of each, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The same is true of what we are doing now, moving toward corporatocracy, merging the power of the corporate and financial world with that of the state. Either one is inimical to individual liberty, unless you’re one of the privileged few at the helm of the merged power.

@DWW25921 Too late to edit, but I realized I should have said that part of protecting individual liberty in Jefferson’s eyes involved protecting the church from the state and the state from the church. His letters also make it abundantly clear he understood the threat of corporatocracy to individual liberty as well. “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

@ETpro Well that makes sense. You know a lot of big words. I got the gist though.

I have another group that should be represented:
people that believe in elves (or 60% of Icelanders)

^ if Glorfindel didn’t exist, who killed the Balrog of Gondolin?

Checkmate, @ragingloli

@DWW25921 Sorry mate. But hey, Jefferson knew a lot of big words too.

@ragingloli & @Seek_Kolinahr Elves deserve a place on the public square too. All messages must be respected, or none at all.

My religion wins, but this would only require only one commandment, and without any Old English: treat others as you would want to be treated. It’s in the Bible, but Christianity isn’t the only religion or philosophy to have emphasized this point, nor the first, though different cultures state that point differently.